Fr. George David Byers asks, and answers, the question. But first, he gives a pretty good refutation of the von Balthasar/Fr. Barron premise that essentially no one goes to hell:

Universal salvation is a heresy asserted by those who, apparently, have never even once read the Gospel. Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar (///Adrienne von Speyr) did not want people to assert this. But he is their hero for claiming there is no hell should one hope that all men be saved. We know that all are redeemed, and since we don’t know who will or will not be saved, we are in anguish that all men be saved, though we know that not all will, in fact, be saved.

I’m no follower of the extremely imprecise terminology used so very ambiguously by his Eminence. He gets the title, even if not the red hat.

Let’s use some clear terminology, shall we, my fellow priests and bishops, lest we lead our flock to hell, as if it were thought anyone could do anything, as if there were no hell? Let’s just take one chapter of Matthew:

“Lord! Lord! Open up [the gates of heaven] for us!” But, having answered, He said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, I do not know you” (Matthew 25,11-12). [The most frightening words than one would ever hear.]

“Throw this worthless slave out, into the outside-darkness. [Can’t be more cast out and inescapably enveloped in eternal darkness than that, can one?] There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25,30). [This comes about with frustration, eternal frustration, no?]

“And all the nations will be gathered together before Him, and He will separate them one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” (Matthew 25,32). [No purgatory after that. Just heaven or hell.]

“Amen I say to you, inasmuch as you did it not to one of these least ones, you did it not to me, and these will depart into eternal punishment” (Matthew 25,45-46). [And it all comes crashing home.]

All these are parables and therefore false, or just a warning, right? Wrong.

The first two are from parables, but parables reflect reality, don’t they? Our Lord is not an idiot, is He?

The last two are not from a parable, but from a description of how things will, in fact, be, at the last judgment. To say this is untrue or just a warning is to call our Lord a liar. But it is Satan who is the father of lies, no?

To answer the original question – why would Fr. So and So, who is sooo nice and almost never, if ever, makes anyone feel bad, go to hell?

He would go to hell most likely for being so very nice instead of being charitable in all truth. An exam of conscience is in order. One of these days I’ll have to publish a more comprehensive list.

Did I lead people astray in the confessional or in answers to questions outside the confessional, telling them that such and such grave sin was no sin at all, just to be nice? Did I offer them “internal forum solutions” when these are not solutions at all, and only keep people in their sin? Did I absolve them even though they did not at all want to repent and try to change their lives with the grace of our Lord? Did I neglect offering the sacrament of reconciliation?

Wow. Especially that last one. Fr. Byers is a modern day hermit with the special intention of offering prayers and sacrifices for the sanctification of his brother priests. That is a beautiful apostolate, sorely needed today. We should all offer prayers for our priests. They have giant targets painted on their backs and are satan’s favorite targets, for if you strike at the shepherd, you scatter the flock. Tragically, many flocks have been scattered. Even more, priests will have to account for souls in their charge, as fathers and mothers will, and bishops, and catechists, and many others.

Pray for Fr. Byers, too, that he may remain constant in his apostolate!

Nothing, is the opinion of one of my new most favoritest blogs, Philothea on Phire:

There’s lots of talk about the tension between the Archdiocese of Detroit and RealCatholicTV, but there seems to me to be a singular lack of communication.

For one thing, the AoD has released several statements (one in 2008, one on December 15, 2011, and one on January 3, 2012), all of which use similar phraseology with regard to RCTV:

“…is not authorized to use the name ‘Catholic’…”

“does not have the authorization required under Church law to identify or promote itself as Catholic”

“does not regard them as authorized to use the word Catholic..”

I like things to be laid out clearly. I’m not always good at doing that myself, of course; and sometimes I’m too good at it, which is generally called “lacking in tact” or being “uncharitable”. Some think it’s “calling a spade a spade”. But I digress.

In none of its “communications” does the AoD say that RCTV has been asked to stop using the name “Catholic”. And yet, that is what we read everywhere!

Comments on blogs indicate that many people believe that Voris and company should “be obedient” to the Archbishop. Well…what is the command which they must obey? Where’s the letter to RCTV spelling out the directive? Where’s the communication?

Sorry, but to me there is a difference between these two statements:

“RCTV is not authorized by the AoD to use the name ‘Catholic’”

“The AoD has asked RCTV to stop using the name ‘Catholic’”

These are very important questions – what exactly is RCTV being asked to do? When do they have to do it by? What happens if they don’t? Is AOD trying to have it both ways, repeatedly claiming RCTV doesn’t have the right to use the name Catholic and creating a public aura of disobedience, without issuing and actionable directive that could be challenged in a canon law tribunal?

I think any lawyer would understand the terminology to be used as being so vague as to be meaningless. RCTV, in point of fact, hasn’t been directed to do anything. And that makes all the difference in the world. Yes, you could say there is an implication of a demand in the statements, but, legally, there is no demand, that I can tell.

Perhaps Ed Peters will weigh in on this aspect.

One final comment from Philothea on Phire:

In my opinion, the vague “not authorized” statements simply allow posturing by the AoD: they allow and encourage the faithful to form a negative opinion about RCTV; they allow the media to suggest that RCTV is ignoring a direct order from the AoD; and they allow the question of motivation to be dodged.

Blimey! Is it conceivable that a ‘Traddie’ will be the next president of America, and go with his six kids to live in The White House? There can only be one person that fits the description of goes-to-a-Mass-in-Latin, home schools all six of his kids, and is also running for president: Rick Santorum.

The Latin Mass he assists at is a Novus Ordo but completely in Latin, save for the readings, of course. I don’t know about recent charges made by a commenter that Santorum was one of the most “corrupt” Congressman – I didn’t follow the link, yet – and there are complaints that he voted for some law that reduced the ability of pro-lifers to access those entering abortion mills. But, on the other hand, he was absolutely instrumental in the fight to get the partial birth abortion ban enacted in 2004 – if you watch the videos of his exchanges with pro-abort senators, I believe you will find that his pro-life convictions are very real. The vote on abortion access was early in his career, and many of us make serious mistakes early in life and then have to strive to overcome them. We don’t know what kind of quid pro quos go on in the back rooms – his support for one measure ostensibly against pro-life efforts may have secured passage of some other more consequential law like the ban on partial birth abortion (I don’t know that, I’m just looking at things charitably).

He does have problems. I never said he was perfect. But of the remaining candidates, he is the most representative of Catholic views – who has a chance of being elected. I am sorry to disappoint folks, and I may make some mad, but Ron Paul will never be elected president of this country. For one, he’s too old – he’ll be 77 at the time of the election, and he’s already complained of being tired and hoping the campaign is a short one. But that’s minor – more major issues are the fact that this country has not elected a House Representative to the presidency since James Garfield in 1880. House representatives simply don’t have the national following to be elected President – or haven’t historically. And some of his past associations (Stormfront) and views (neo-Taftian isolationism, economic views, etc) will get him absolutely plastered in the general election. I am certain Obama would love to run against none other than Ron Paul. The guy is not electable.

It would be interesting to know what a remodel like this cost. Certainly, this remodel is operating under a radically different model from the dominant pattern of church design/remodel common in the Dallas Diocese, witnessed by the recent remodel of St. Patrick’s in Dallas and the rebuild of St. Cecilias. Both were very similar, and adhere to a common form of the altar jutting far out into the nave and with seating therefore on 3 sides of the altar. I really like the above.

Fr. Ray Blake has blogged repeatedly on the redesign of his parish – St. Mary Magdalen in Brighton, England – which was sadly badly remodeled in the 70s in a spirit of exuberance and with much of its historic beauty destroyed. Re-building it to something of its former glory has been quite involved and difficult. But I think the results warrant the effort.